Percentage of Population Surviving at Each Age

Introduction

Past and projected mortality data reveals changes in life expectancy that carry significant implications for economic and public policy. Comparing survival probabilities across six UK birth cohorts shows that mortality improvements have shifted in scale but also in timing. 

What does the chart show?

The chart, which plots the percentage of each cohort surviving at every age from birth to 100, shows that those born in 1900 faced high child mortality and a steep decline in mid-life, whereas later cohorts benefit from ever-improving survival rates. The rate of these improvements, however, has slowed over time.

Why is the chart interesting?

In childhood and early adulthood, the differences between the 1900 cohort and those born in the mid to late twentieth century are stark. By age one, only around 83 percent of the 1900 cohort remained alive, compared with close to 100 percent survival for those born in 2000 or after. These early-life improvements reflect the near-complete harvesting of ‘low-hanging fruit’ in public health and medical intervention, including immunisation programmes, antibiotics, and better maternal and infant care.

As the cohorts progress into their fifties, sixties, and seventies, the gaps in survival rates continue to expand, though more modestly for more recent cohorts. While the 1950 and 1975 cohorts demonstrate significant gains over earlier groups, the gap between 2000 and 2025 narrows, suggesting diminishing returns in tackling conditions that predominantly affect mid-life. For many chronic diseases, effective treatments have already been implemented, meaning further breakthroughs are increasingly challenging and expensive. This slowing pace of improvement in mid-life contrasts sharply with the acceleration of gains in later life, particularly from age 80 onwards. When comparing the 2000 and 2025 cohorts, the chart shows that the survival advantage in the eighties and nineties is larger than the difference observed between 1975 and 2000 at those same ages. This phenomenon can be attributed to advances in managing age-related conditions, greater emphasis on personalised medicine, and improved geriatric care that specifically target frailty and chronic illnesses common among the very elderly.

The shifting balance of survival gains has interesting consequences. Historically, improvements in early and mid-life contributed to a healthier, more productive workforce, driving tax revenues and consumer spending. The data now indicate that the scope for further major improvements in these age groups may be limited without revolutionary medical breakthroughs. Instead, the most pronounced progress appears in later life, a development that places additional pressure on pension systems and healthcare services. Longer life expectancy among the oldest extends the period of retirement and increases the likelihood of complex health needs, raising questions about how to finance these additional years. As the proportion of older individuals grows, governments will need to consider whether current retirement ages, pension contributions, and healthcare funding models remain fit for purpose.

Ultimately, the chart illustrates a century of progress but also points to the challenges ahead. The fiscal and social implications of an ageing population must be weighed against the benefits of extended longevity. Strategic planning today is needed to ensure that tomorrow’s gains in survival benefit both individuals and society as a whole.